Problems of Utopias: Abstract Religion

 

The problem of abstract religion--in which the physical is heavily idealized while being shoved off-stage--is captured by a Christmas romance series about an angel ornament. The ornament blesses different couples; sometimes the angel herself appears. 

The series starts in the mid-eighteenth century and ends in the modern era. The first three books use the angel in frankly paranormal ways (but not so much that a plot is lost). In addition, the angel in the first three books is frankly pro-physical love, neither embarrassed nor squeamish that each couple has a sexual relationship.

Over the course of the books, the paranormal element fades while the angel becomes a far more fastidious character than established originally. Less the frank and fleshy nuns of Brother Cadfael (or even the well-lived nun of the Father Dowling Mysteries--or Sister Mary Clarence) and more like...I'm not sure. I have a hard time thinking of a literary comparison since I don't read religious books with prudish nuns or angels. (Or watch shows with them either.)

The change from a non-prudish angel to a prudish one matches social changes in the last 300 years, changes that result in modern shock and reproach. 

We 21st Century folks like to imagine that we are so bold and frank and open-minded or--depending on who's talking--salacious and obscene and indecent.

The fact is, we aren't anywhere close to any of those things, no matter how we present or castigate ourselves.

Mostly, we're offended by everything: women breastfeeding in public, the idea that God might not be opposed to sex, bare bodies bathing or dressing together, religious ceremonies that focus on the physical form, frank discussions of sexual matters, women as sexual beings, men as sexual beings, people as biological beings, people sharing rooms, people sharing bathtubs, women giving birth, women giving birth at home, other people being present during births, National Geographic magazines, the nude in art, romance paperbacks, romance paperback covers, songs that mention sex, manga, bawdy humor.

The testicle joke in Witness is

far more realistic to agrarian cultures

than moderns like to believe.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that all this offense is coming from the right. Or that all this shocked unease is coming exclusively from religious people. Christianity makes a good scapegoat. But old-time Christianity had no trouble discussing sex as a reality. From Paul to Augustine to young pregnant single girls praying to the Virgin Mary, sex was something real to grapple with.

I maintain that the two biggest influences on modern attitudes regarding sexual matters are the growth of privacy and the worries/theories of philosophers. As human beings gained privacy (post 1750), they become far more prudish. In an earlier post on Votaries, I call this "prudish prurient permissiveness whereby a partially clad body is instantly sexualized by those who take offense and by those who take an interest while both the offended and the interested are scandalized at the idea of having to share a bedroom or bathroom."

Reality: Puritans told bawdy jokes. And slept together before marriage. And knew all about sex since living near animals kind of gives the plot away. They were well-aware of the earthy vagaries of the human, physical form.

Never trust a historian or a politician or an offended commentator (and there are lots of those out there) who tries to tell you that once upon a time, people were ever so naive and closeted--or innocent--and didn't know all the things we know. Instead, ask yourself what our ancestors would find to laugh about when it comes to us.

The connection here to utopias is that utopias almost always fall to pieces around the subject of sex. I will come back to this issue in a later post. Here I want to comment on the utopian penchant for purely abstract/philosophical religions--so much so that one of my idealistic students once passionately try to convince me that the "good" Ancient Egyptians didn't have any of that dark, sin-oriented, negative stuff in THEIR religion(s). 

The student was, of course, wrong, which I pointed out. But I've encountered the same attitude regarding prettified Eastern religions in America. I am sorry to say that until middle age, I didn't know that Buddhism even has a hell.

It does. I immediately become more interested in Buddhism. 

It isn't that I like the idea of hell. It is that a religion without one seems to be lacking a basic connection to what Stephen King would call "the alligators" in our minds. No id. No ego. Just a lot of rules and proper attitudes. 

A religion needs to do better than pageantry, though pageantry helps, if it is going to be more than a country club--if it is going to offer something distinct from philanthropy and education and social clubs and political organizations. And if it doesn't connect to the human physical experience, it isn't doing its job (see Napoleon and the Catholic Church for an example of "the people" being offered an intellectual abstract religion and finding it less than appealing).

In other words, utopias that replace a religion's dark-side with either a mass of rules or a mass of acceptable platitudes will fail to connect to fundamentals within human nature. Even if a religion's purpose is to remind people of the need to rise above the "id," such improvement can only happen if the religion also remembers (1) the dark-side doesn't magically disappear; (2) the sins of the spirit are worse.